The villager parable is too egalitarian. That's not really how it worked.
For most of history, peasants were sustenance farmers, meaning they grew their own food and if the harvest was bad, they could starve. For them, there was no such thing as insurance and they really needed ways to reduce risk. For example, they'd feast their neighbors so that when times were hard, the neighbors would hopefully help them out in turn. Investing in close-knit relationships isn't like barter - it's more like informal credit. Kinship networks still work something like this today.
And this meant they didn't really need money.
But how do people who aren't peasants themselves get food? By extracting rents and taxes, in return for protection and certain services, perhaps plowing fields. Local "big men" might take payment in kind, but for a more organized government, they'd collect taxes using money, which gave the peasants incentives to grow and sell food for money.
So villages would monetize or demonetize depending on the state of nearby governments. A monetized society allows people who aren't farmers to buy food and cities to exist. Therefore, civilization was built on military force, taxes, and rent extracted from peasants, who were the basis of a mostly agricultural economy.
Be glad our civilization isn't built on sustenance farming anymore.
As someone who works at a financial institution, this is a really refreshing and concise breakdown of money and monetary systems. I think the most important thing that people should realise from reading this is that none of the things we have in our monetary systems were dreamed up for no reason, each solves a clear problem, and often was found by multiple independent groups of people at different times. I absolutely love the fact that it's essentially just layers of trust, analogous to a certificate authority or a domain name system.
And, of course, that the top level of trust is a bit arbitrary, and that "black money", of course the US Dollar, isn't worth more than trust in the US government.
Your attitude is why even short videos shared on social media today begin with a few seconds showing the "payoff" of the video.
The risk of having your time wasted is an inherent part of consuming creative works; it makes things more enjoyable when the gamble pays off (dopamine is triggered via reward prediction error). A life where you only consume media with accurately predicted positive utility would be devoid of joy.
So I'd say if you want to know the narrative, what it wants to tell you, and why, simply read it. Take the gamble that it may suck, you'll enjoy it more if it doesn't.
But also, to avoid being a jerk: it's a piece that attempts to explain the modern global economic system (and the implications of USD being the global reserve currency specifically) from first principles using simple prose, where each "chapter" introduces a new layer of complexity.
I’m happy to hear criticism and to learn from that, but I wrote this myself. Took quite a while.
Re: why, I don’t think most people understand the very basics of the global economy in mechanical terms, and this was my attempt to explain those mechanics. I wanted the various pieces of the system to be motivated by understandable problems, hence the fable-like story.
I now see some folks were triggered by this stylized approach. Which is a pity. I think the simple setup is worth the payoff. My explanation of money creation, for example, matches the Bank of England’s whitepaper, and I am especially pleased with how the idea of a reserve currency both develops naturally and rhymes with earlier ideas lower in the hierarchy.
Your article was well worth the read. Thank you for that. It's merely a HN trend where lazy people who can't read an article bad-mouth it as AI. You'll find the lazy AI comment in every article's top first or second comment now. Don't bother justifying yourself, keep it up and keep writing.
It is also totally wrong. I got to the third block and quit, as this is just an LLM bullshit version of the 18th century bullshit fantasy of the origin of money (see David Graeber's Debt).
You can't describe how various forms of monetary value work in the modern monetary system as if it were a rural village with physical items, because it is fundamentally different.
The only problem of money is inflation. The ability of one single entity to print money at will, stealing from everybody else without them noticing is one of the greatest con jobs in the history of mankind (and we all know who has the master printer in the world)
Money is a beautiful instrument for trading and free markets, the only way for two entities to peacefully exchange goods. Inflate that money supply and you are silently stealing from the pockets of those who trust that instrument
Come on… It's been known for more than a century that bartering has never been the default mean of exchange among humans, can we kill this myth eventually?!
Not only bartering has never been the default mean of exchange, but also the idea that money were created to optimize the trading process is also wrong.
For an item to become currency in a society, it must already be something people value independently of its use as money, and people must expect others to accept it as well. Say the villagers live near the sea and find some beautiful shiny stones that everyone wants. Those stones can then become currency.
A good example of this is tobacco in colonial America. It came to be used as currency because it was already widely traded and valued.
This is obviously not an attempt at anything remotely resembling documentary history. It’s more of a just so story explaining what problem each step solved.
Unless of course one thinks that smooth gray stones from a riverbed two miles away reflects some historically significant point in money’s evolution.
I'm not going to explain David Graeber's Debt to you, but yes, this exact 18th century fantasy of the emergence of money in caveman times contains the same kind of misunderstandings that also leads to most people having an incredibly misguided view of how the contemporary global financial system operates.
I certainly don't think anything like this actually happened. And the linked article doesn't really do so either. I do think it can be a useful illustration of what problem each technology solves.
In another thread you talk about how the internet really is a series of tubes. We all know that "tubes" can be a useful analogy for understanding certain things about circuits and things built upon them. But we also don't think that tubes are more than a very basic analogy. Tubes don't really do packet switching.
The problem is the story is wrong, and that leads to misunderstandings of what money is and how economic institutions arose in fact vs mythology.
For starters, debt records came before money basically everywhere we have evidence for the invention of money.
i would very strongly suggest reading David Graeber. It completely revolutionized my understanding of how human social and economic institutions emerge and evolve in actual fact vs imagined myth.
We can just tell the real story, it's far more interesting and useful than the myth.
For most of history, peasants were sustenance farmers, meaning they grew their own food and if the harvest was bad, they could starve. For them, there was no such thing as insurance and they really needed ways to reduce risk. For example, they'd feast their neighbors so that when times were hard, the neighbors would hopefully help them out in turn. Investing in close-knit relationships isn't like barter - it's more like informal credit. Kinship networks still work something like this today.
And this meant they didn't really need money.
But how do people who aren't peasants themselves get food? By extracting rents and taxes, in return for protection and certain services, perhaps plowing fields. Local "big men" might take payment in kind, but for a more organized government, they'd collect taxes using money, which gave the peasants incentives to grow and sell food for money.
So villages would monetize or demonetize depending on the state of nearby governments. A monetized society allows people who aren't farmers to buy food and cities to exist. Therefore, civilization was built on military force, taxes, and rent extracted from peasants, who were the basis of a mostly agricultural economy.
Be glad our civilization isn't built on sustenance farming anymore.
And, of course, that the top level of trust is a bit arbitrary, and that "black money", of course the US Dollar, isn't worth more than trust in the US government.
There might be a point in there, but it might also just be paragraphs of text with little structure joined together.
What's the narrative? What does this want to tell me? And why?
Something like an opening header block with 2-5 sentences would go a long way.
The risk of having your time wasted is an inherent part of consuming creative works; it makes things more enjoyable when the gamble pays off (dopamine is triggered via reward prediction error). A life where you only consume media with accurately predicted positive utility would be devoid of joy.
So I'd say if you want to know the narrative, what it wants to tell you, and why, simply read it. Take the gamble that it may suck, you'll enjoy it more if it doesn't.
But also, to avoid being a jerk: it's a piece that attempts to explain the modern global economic system (and the implications of USD being the global reserve currency specifically) from first principles using simple prose, where each "chapter" introduces a new layer of complexity.
Re: why, I don’t think most people understand the very basics of the global economy in mechanical terms, and this was my attempt to explain those mechanics. I wanted the various pieces of the system to be motivated by understandable problems, hence the fable-like story.
I now see some folks were triggered by this stylized approach. Which is a pity. I think the simple setup is worth the payoff. My explanation of money creation, for example, matches the Bank of England’s whitepaper, and I am especially pleased with how the idea of a reserve currency both develops naturally and rhymes with earlier ideas lower in the hierarchy.
You can't describe how various forms of monetary value work in the modern monetary system as if it were a rural village with physical items, because it is fundamentally different.
Also, you can often derive the what if you know the why and just follow the thread and map it out.
Who can create money, who can access it, who can change the rules, who can freeze or censor transactions or even weaponize whole financial system?
What I dislike about fiat is that inflation is treated as a (wanted) feature while it is a cost paid by plebs via Cantillon effect.
All Govs keep rolling debt burden being paid with more debt.
Paper backed by paper and/or trust into goverments only. History and significant part of the world shows that this trust is being failed too often.
How sustainable current system is?
Money is a beautiful instrument for trading and free markets, the only way for two entities to peacefully exchange goods. Inflate that money supply and you are silently stealing from the pockets of those who trust that instrument
Come on… It's been known for more than a century that bartering has never been the default mean of exchange among humans, can we kill this myth eventually?!
For an item to become currency in a society, it must already be something people value independently of its use as money, and people must expect others to accept it as well. Say the villagers live near the sea and find some beautiful shiny stones that everyone wants. Those stones can then become currency.
A good example of this is tobacco in colonial America. It came to be used as currency because it was already widely traded and valued.
Unless of course one thinks that smooth gray stones from a riverbed two miles away reflects some historically significant point in money’s evolution.
In another thread you talk about how the internet really is a series of tubes. We all know that "tubes" can be a useful analogy for understanding certain things about circuits and things built upon them. But we also don't think that tubes are more than a very basic analogy. Tubes don't really do packet switching.
For starters, debt records came before money basically everywhere we have evidence for the invention of money.
i would very strongly suggest reading David Graeber. It completely revolutionized my understanding of how human social and economic institutions emerge and evolve in actual fact vs imagined myth.
We can just tell the real story, it's far more interesting and useful than the myth.